What the EHRC restraint in schools inquiry said — advice for schools

This post is about ehrc restraint in schools inquiry. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Restraint in schools inquiry: using meaningful data to protect children’s rights is a major report for school leaders because it focuses on a problem that is often overlooked: not simply whether restraint is used, but whether schools know enough about their own use of restraint to protect children’s rights and improve practice.

Why the inquiry matters: restraint without data is risk in the dark

The inquiry examined recording and monitoring of restraint in schools in England and Wales. Its central concern was that, although restraint can sometimes be necessary, there is no reliable national picture of how often it is used, on which pupils, in what circumstances or with what outcomes. Without meaningful data, schools, governments, regulators and parents cannot be confident that restraint is being used lawfully, proportionately, fairly or only as a last resort.

A human rights and equality lens on restraint

The report is grounded in human rights and equality law. The EHRC defines restraint broadly as any act carried out with the purpose of restricting an individual’s movement, liberty or freedom to act independently. This includes active physical interventions, passive physical interventions, seclusion, mechanical restraint and chemical restraint. The report is particularly concerned about the impact on disabled children, children with special educational needs and other groups who may be disproportionately affected.

For schools, the first message is that restraint is not merely an operational issue. It is a safeguarding, equality and human rights issue. Children have rights under the Human Rights Act, including protection from inhuman or degrading treatment and respect for physical and mental integrity. Disabled pupils and other protected groups are also protected by the Equality Act 2010. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires schools to consider how their policies and practices eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. Schools cannot do this properly if they do not collect and analyse relevant information.

Teachers are not the problem — weak systems are

The report recognises that school staff are often doing their best in difficult situations. It does not present teachers as the problem. Instead, it identifies inconsistent guidance, unclear definitions and weak systems as major barriers. Many teachers want clearer national definitions, better training standards and better advice on avoiding restraint. The report therefore calls for stronger support, not simply more criticism.

Policies that only permit restraint are incomplete

A key finding is that most schools said they had a policy covering restraint, but policies varied significantly. Some did not require all incidents to be recorded. Fewer required analysis of incidents. This matters because a policy that only permits restraint is incomplete. A good policy should also require recording, review and action to reduce future use. Transparency is important for staff, pupils and parents. If parents do not know what forms of restraint might be used, or are not told when restraint has been used, trust can quickly break down.

Some forms of restriction are recorded less than others

The inquiry found that schools were generally more confident recording active physical restraint than other forms of restrictive intervention. Passive physical interventions, seclusion, mechanical restraint and chemical restraint were less consistently understood and recorded. This matters because pupils may experience these practices as restrictive even when adults use softer labels such as “time out”, “calm room”, “internal exclusion”, “managing away” or “supportive equipment”. Schools need shared definitions so that staff know what to record and leaders can see the full picture.

Recording as protection, not paperwork

The report places great weight on the value of recording. Recording is not just a defensive exercise after a serious event. It is a way to protect children, support staff and improve systems. A meaningful record allows the school to ask: what happened before the incident, what alternatives were tried, what form of restraint was used, how long it lasted, whether there were injuries, how the child experienced it, whether parents were informed, and what support or review followed.

Monitoring turns records into prevention intelligence

Monitoring goes a step further. Schools should not only keep individual incident forms; they should analyse patterns. Are particular pupils restrained repeatedly? Are incidents clustered around certain lessons, locations, transitions, staff teams or times of day? Are disabled pupils, boys, girls, children from particular ethnic groups or pupils eligible for free school meals affected disproportionately? Are certain types of restraint increasing? Are injuries or distress being recorded? These questions turn incident records into prevention intelligence.

Treat restraint monitoring like exclusion monitoring

The EHRC argues that monitoring restraint should be prioritised similarly to monitoring exclusions. Exclusions data is routinely collected and published, including breakdowns by pupil characteristics. The Commission concludes there is a strong case for similar attention to restraint because both practices can significantly affect children’s access to education, wellbeing and rights. For schools, this reinforces the importance of internal transparency even where national reporting requirements have historically been limited.

Training that reduces restraint, not normalises it

The report also highlights the importance of training. There were no mandatory government standards for restraint training providers in school settings at the time of the inquiry, unlike some health and social care contexts. The EHRC warns that poorly framed training may risk normalising restraint rather than reducing it. Schools should therefore choose training that emphasises prevention, positive behaviour support, de-escalation, rights, dignity, proportionality and post-incident learning — not simply techniques.

Involve children and parents in review

A practical implication is that schools should involve children and parents in reviewing restraint practice. Children’s voices matter, including the voices of children who communicate nonverbally. Parents may provide vital information about triggers, communication, sensory needs, trauma, medical vulnerabilities and what helps the child recover. The report’s emphasis on transparency suggests that schools should not treat restraint as something hidden from families unless there is a clear safeguarding reason.

Schools do not need to wait for national reform

The inquiry’s recommendations were aimed partly at governments and inspectorates, including calls for mandatory recording, national definitions, statutory guidance and better oversight. But schools do not need to wait for national reform to improve. They can define restrictive interventions clearly, record consistently, analyse patterns, review policies, involve families, train staff well and use data to reduce restrictive practice.

For school leaders, the report’s most important lesson is this: if restraint is happening but not meaningfully recorded and analysed, the school is effectively managing risk in the dark. Good data will not solve every behaviour challenge, but without it leaders cannot identify disproportionality, unmet need, unsafe practice or opportunities for prevention. Meaningful recording is not bureaucracy. It is a child-rights safeguard.

Practical advice for schools

Define restraint broadly, including passive physical intervention, seclusion and restrictive equipment.
Record all significant uses of restraint and consider recording all restrictive interventions for learning purposes.
Analyse patterns by pupil, setting, time, staff group, incident type and outcome.
Include equality information where appropriate so disproportionality can be identified.
Review policies so they cover recording, monitoring, parental communication and reduction strategies.
Choose training that prioritises prevention, de-escalation, rights and restraint reduction.
Involve pupils and parents in reviewing incidents and support plans.
Treat restraint data as safeguarding intelligence, not just compliance paperwork.

The source document

This explainer summarises the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, Restraint in schools inquiry: using meaningful data to protect children’s rights. The official publication page is: Restraint in schools inquiry: using meaningful data to protect children’s rights, with the full report available as a PDF.

Keep reading

More guidance explainers for schools

ehrc restraint in schools inquiry: Call to action

Recording and monitoring only improve practice when staff are trained to understand restraint reduction. If you would like help building a recording, review and reduction culture in your school, talk to an adviser about our training.

This guide on ehrc restraint in schools inquiry is part of our ongoing work with schools and academies.

Guides

Download our Positive Handling starter guide for schools.

Contact Us

Ready to explore Positive Handling training for your staff team? Let’s talk today.